It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BREAKING: The End Of Citizens United?

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   
BREAKING: The End Of Citizens United?
(Addictinginfo.org)

Can Montana brief end Citizens United?
(Politico.com)


In a surprising and much welcomed display of bi-partisanship, Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) today filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the American Tradition Partnership vs. Bullock, now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. The filing is in support of the Montana Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the state’s ban on independent expenditures by corporations.

The US Supreme Court issued a stay of decision on the case in February and the McCain/Whitehouse brief calls upon the Court to review the finding that the Citizen’s United ruling allowing independent expenditures has no corrupting influence in political campaigns.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


From the brief:

“Evidence from the 2010 and 2012 electoral cycles has demonstrated that so-called independent expenditures create a strong potential for corruption and the perception thereof…The news confirms, daily, that existing campaign finance rules purporting to provide for ‘independence’ and ‘disclosure’ in fact provide neither.”


The senators say:

“This unregulated and unaccountable spending invites corruption into our political process and undermines our democracy. We urge the Supreme Court to make clear that legislatures can take appropriate actions against corrupting influences in campaigns.”


This would be welcome news, if it prevails, to overcome the level of corruption and corporatism hijacking our political process.

Too see just how bad the Citizens United decision is, see this editorial:

Money Unlimited
How Chief Justice John Roberts orchestrated the Citizens United decision




posted on May, 18 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Well it is certainly a step in the right direction. At the minimum, full transparency and disclosure
rule should be enforced to the fullest extent of the law.

S&F



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   
What does this mean? I'm young and confused.


edit on 18-5-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Maybe McCain has some "maverick" life left in him yet. Let's see if this actually goes anywhere, though.
Still, it's at least an attempt toward ending the moneyed corruption our political process, which has been pretty much swallowed up by it in recent years.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


Hopefully they'll reverse the decision, and end the charade that corporations "are people", and end the unlimited funding of SuperPACs. Hopefully. Not that I'm willing to hold my breath over it.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   
I sure hope they do get rid of these super-pacs. Although i'm afraid they may just do away with the anonymous donors wich is'nt nearly enough for me. Were not going to get real change in Washington until we get the money out of polotics.



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


What does or did citizen united do?



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


What does or did citizen united do?


Court case descriptions from wikipedia:

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions. The nonprofit corporation Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA").[2] In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that portions of BCRA §203 violated the First Amendment.

The decision reached the Supreme Court on appeal from a July 2008 decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions. The lower court held that §203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries.[1][3] The Supreme Court reversed, striking down those provisions of BCRA that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from spending on "electioneering communications".[2]

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission



The Citizens United website:

Who We Are

Citizens United is an organization dedicated to restoring our government to citizens' control. Through a combination of education, advocacy, and grass roots organization, Citizens United seeks to reassert the traditional American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security. Citizens United's goal is to restore the founding fathers' vision of a free nation, guided by the honesty, common sense, and good will of its citizens.


Citizens United


^^^^ Oxymoron ? ^^^^
Take it for what it's worth.

very complicated and loads of controversies.









edit on May-19-2012 by xuenchen because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


If the Montana law prevails .....

Does that mean other States can pass similar legislation ?

If so, how would all that affect National election campaigns like for President ?

Very interesting.

Does the Montana law prevent contributions to National elections as well as local and State ?

Does anyone know if other States already have similar laws ?



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Isn't that a separate matter though? "corporate person hood" exists regardless of the legality of the ablity to donate to political campaigns.


Since at least Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the Supreme Court noted in dicta in a .note that corporations as persons for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.


en.wikipedia.org...



new topics

top topics



 
8

log in

join